Ambition, Triwizard tasks, Bible, Am Darcy fool, R/H, filk

[davewitley]

No: HPFGUIDX 38750

Cindy wondered about the place of ambition in the Potterverse, with 
examples.

I think she's right, that JKR is tempting us to think that it's wrong 
to be ambitious.  It is the defining characteristic of Slytherin, who 
are set up as the bad guys.

I think there are three possibilities:

1) JKR thinks ambition is a bad thing, and wants to teach her readers 
that.

2) JKR has decided that ambition, rightly directed ('I want to be the 
first to discover a cure for cancer') is a good thing, but wants to 
lead us a merry dance first through various suspect and downright 
evil expressions of ambition.

I think this is the most likely possibility.  However, there is 
possibility 3) which may not have occurred to everybody:

3) JKR has been brought up to believe ambition is a bad thing, and 
may herself be working through her feelings about it.

What triggered this reflection was Penny's remark that she likes Ron 
the less because he grouses without doing anything positive to 
improve his lot, and the speculation that in the US ambition and hard 
work to better yourself are better regarded than in Britain.

Many British people would like to be rich and famous; they mostly do 
two things in furtherance of this aim: they play the lottery, and 
they read magazines which describe the lives of the rich and famous.  
While Ron is not really like that, he is not a million miles removed 
from that cultural pattern.

We don't like ambitious people.  We don't trust them, because we may 
only be their stepping stones.  They are viewed as having no loyalty, 
except to themselves.  If they succeed, they make us feel worse, 
because if only we'd pulled our socks up we might have got where they 
are.  If they fail, we take comfort that we made the right decision 
to stay in obscurity.  It is a common belief that if someone is rich, 
they cheated, they inherited it, or they were lucky.  "Only fools and 
horses work hard" because if you work hard it's a sign you are being 
exploited; you certainly won't reap the reward of your work.

So, I think Ron's lack of drive and his general skipping homework, 
doing it at the last minute, de-valuing academic knowledge and 
preferring sport are all typical of the values English boys in 
particular are expected to hold.  Read the Beano or the Dandy.  He is 
possibly meant to be a sympathetic character because of these things.

How does all this go down in the can-do land of laissez-faire 
capitalism and the frontier spirit?  Australians, Canadians, Germans 
and others, any thoughts?

Cincy also found the second Task FLINT-y.  I see what you mean.  
There is another thing that's unclear to me: are the tasks chosen by 
the judges, or are they in some way a product of the Goblet?  If 
Dobby is in fact correct about 'the thing you miss most' (that elf-
magic again) and Sirius had in fact been what Harry missed most, 
would the inviolable, inevitable, infallible, unavoidable magic of 
the contest have *forced* Sirius to join in, fugitive or no?  It 
strikes me as odd that the Goblet is so powerful that there is no 
escaping the tasks for Harry, yet it appears that the actual 
construction of the tasks is somewhat ad hoc.  Where's the Destiny in 
that?

Dicentra scribbled:

"I myself am not sure to what degree Harry will turn out to be a
Christ figure, if at all, but at the same time the Biblical
'correspondences' shouldn't be underplayed if they are numerous enough
and distinct enough.  Using the Bible as a Rosetta stone to understand
HP is not a random comparison: JKR is a believing Christian living in
a society where Biblical allegory and imagery forms an enormous part
of the literary history.  She is deliberately encoding the books with
symbols of her choosing for the purpose of making a richer and more
meaningful story.  She would lose her audience if she used symbols
with which we were not likely to be familiar.  If we were using the
Upanishads or the Popol Vuh to interpret the imagery, I think the
'correspondences' theory would hold more water, so to speak."

I didn't mean there are no Biblical parallels in HP.  I think my 
point is in your phrase about numerous and distinct - I think the way 
the symbols relate to each other to form pervasive patterns in both 
books is important too.  Also, the importance (in the Biblical 
context) of the symbol matters too.  So, sacrificial death, or death-
and-resurection patterns in HP *do* recall the Bible - e.g. I see 
Lily as the nearest Christ-parallel (and Voldemort an anti-Christ 
parallel with his 'resurrection').  Conversely, I would see the four 
houses and the four horsemen of the apocalypse, say, as a 
coincidence.  In-between, I can't decide whether the resemblances 
between the Chamber of Secrets and the Holy of Holies are conscious 
in JKR's mind, a lucky chance, or evidence of Jung's theory of 
archetypes.   All I was saying is that it's difficult and there are 
pitfalls.  I admit I am finicky about getting the rules of 
interpretation of things right, and don't want to stop others having 
their fun.

Eloise mentioned that she finds Harry un-Christ-like.  (Great post, 
BTW - I liked the idea that Voldemort is the *corruption* of 
Slytherin: there's quite a lot of mileage in that for another 
thread)  I agree, not least because it would be a brave author indeed 
who made their POV character a Christ-figure.  Reader expectations 
are all geared to a Pilgrim's Progress view of their literary 
characters: if I am Harry, and there is a Christian message here, 
then surely Harry should be the typical (in the full sense of the 
word) Christian.

Heidi put forward the interesting suggestion that Jane Austen got her 
fanfic in early.  I'm just sorry that such a noted author should have 
messed up her reading of Draco so badly: all that stuff about being 
raised with good principles seems to me to have no canon foundation.  
Better luck next time, Jane!, and avoid those love triangles - the 
public doesn't like 'em.

Heidi again, responding to me about Hermione and Ron:

Me:
>>Each of 
> them wants to be responsible for the other in a way that, IMO, is 
> uncharacteristic of friendship that is happy with the state it's 
at.

Heidi
> I don't really understand the last sentence. What do you mean a 
friendship that's happy with the state that it's at? How can there 
be such a thing among teenagers, who are learning and growing and 
changing every day? Their personalities are developing, their 
focuses are changing - even their interests can change as they 
discover new things.

Of course.  But I think that change happens unconsciously for the 
most part. (Not to deny that teenagers can spend ages analysing the 
exact state of their friendships - I wonder do any of H, H &R lie 
awake at night wondering which of the other two is their *best* 
friend?  Whether either of the other two sees *them* as their best 
friend?)  I hope with adults too.  My point, not explained very well, 
was that both of them are trying to force the relationship to change.

> And there's nothing wrong with trying to convince your friends that 
something is missing in their lives.

I don't really see Hermione as enthusiastically telling Ron: "I 've 
just discovered this wonderful thing called homework!  You really 
should try it!"  Her normal approach is moral pressure - to the 
extent that she has trouble persuading Ron of her genuine excitement 
over finding Dobby.

Caius:

>I'll permit Harry to watch as I don my re-birthday suit
He'll be frightened

As am I!

David